Posted on 09/19/2023 6:47:23 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
I read with absolute astonishment the Sept. 14 editorial “Republicans cheapen a vital power of the House.” The editorial stated that “some on the far left tried to impeach President George W. Bush on unreasonable grounds.” Mr. Bush misled the country about weapons of mass destruction, waged a war against a sovereign country (without U.N. approval) and caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the process.
If that’s an unreasonable proposition, then the criteria for impeachment need to be reevaluated.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
More of a valid reason than they used to impeach Trump in his term.
I’d support impeaching that POS Bush and his pig father now. They impeached Trump when he was out of office, so there is precedent.
While you’re at throw Cheney and his war pig daughter under the bus too.
> I’d support impeaching that POS Bush and his pig father now. <
The elder Bush is now answering for his crimes elsewhere, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the younger Bush answering for his here.
And as a side note, members of Congress during those days have much to answer for as well. The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Congress carelessly (and cowardly) ceded that power to the Bush cabal
We have not declared war since World War II.
For unknown reasons, we do not declare war anymore.
Anyone know why that it?
We have had significant military actions since World War II, but none were declared wars.
I think Democrats have tried to impeach every Republican POTUS since Nixon, I remember right, before Nixon, I don’t think they tried to impeach Eisenhower, but I am not certain of that.
They were convince Reagan could be impeached over the Iran Contra deal, until Oliver North turned those ideas into dust when he testified in open session before the congressional committee hearing.
They did not. What a ridiculous lie.
And we haven’t won a single one since then.
> For unknown reasons, we do not declare war anymore. Anyone know why that it? <
When it comes to major actions like Vietnam and Iraq, my uneducated guess is that it’s cowardliness on the part of Congress. Each member of Congress must make an important decision when a war vote is taken.
Vote for a declaration and the conflict turns out badly, then you’re a war-mongering fool.
Vote against a declaration and the conflict is a success, then you’re a spineless fool.
Why take the chance? It’s so much easier to ignore the Constitution and let the president decide.
Mr. Bush misled the country about weapons of mass destruction, waged a war against a sovereign country (without U.N. approval) and caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the process.
Why does a nation require UN approval for war. The Constitution requires Congressional approval, and most Democrats don’t even get that.
Let’s not forget though that the Iraq WAR was a “two-chapter event” based on two battles. It started with the illegal invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein - who took control of massive oil production that could destabilize the whole world-economy, and Americas.
The USA, the French Foreign Legion and other allies liberated Kuwait after the first battle.
But there were no peace deals signed. Saddam REMAINED in power. And continued a very intense anti-american attitude. He refused to open those palaces for inspections of suspected hidden WMD’s. He opened them after a week or so, once they were emptied. We all remember the massive truck convoys of “goods” being secretely convoyed to Syria at night from Iraq.
5000 Wmd’s were finally found in Iraq. That’s probably more than what many EU nations secretly may have, combined.
New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
We have not declared war since World War II.
On the other hand, how does the article’s writer feel about the fact that President Trump didn’t start any wars?
but didn’t threaten impeachment for Clinton over his illegal NATO action vs . Yugo...during Kosovo (or Kosova) war...
There was serious talk among some Democrats to impeach Trump a third time. This was after Trump had left office.
Freeper HYPOCRACY probably remembered those talks. But it was just talk. There was of course no actual impeachment.
Since when does the U.S. government need U.N. approval to wage war?
It’s was not only a question about WMD’s! That’s a false narrative.
UN Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq’s breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that “...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.”
I dont know USA-France, you might be sugar coating things to an extent.
I am old enough to remember and the Bush media (odd how they never helped Trump) made Iraq out to be an ominous existential threat to the USA and the west. 5000 Artillery shells filled with WW1 era mustard gas etc don’t qualify for that.
Plus they acted in this nebulous way we were somehow getting revenge for 911–that was the general feeling at the time. We know know it was nearly entirely an Al-Quida Saudi affair—-15 of 19 were Saudi and we basically “punished” them by buying more oil.
After Bush’s genius destruction of Iraq we found terroism actually increased there. You see Sadam and his thuggish sons hated terrorists as they were threats . Thus was ISIS born.
Finally look at the plethora of countries that have WMDs today and not all friends but we don’t annihilate them.
PS on a different topic notice Ukraine is listed as a possible nuclear weapons owner, something I’ve speculated about. How does the world know Ukraine really gave back its hundreds of nukes to Russia. Something to consider as we see war there now.
https://irp.fas.org/threat/wmd_state.htm
There is no doubt that Saddam was in breach of certain agreements made after Gulf War I. And he had chemical weapons. But not nearly to the extent Bush II claimed.
Should we go to war with every nation that breaches agreements or has dangerous weapons? After all, North Korea has breached international agreements. And North Korea has threatened South Korea and Japan. Should we invade North Korea?
I don’t mean to be flippant here. Such questions must be carefully considered on a risk-return basis. I firmly believe that Bush II’s invasion was an expensive and bloody overreaction. Among other things, it upset the apple cart in that region. Iran is now unchecked by Iraq. And there probably would have been no civil war in Syria if Saddam were still in power.
Of course, your mileage may vary here.
“waged a war against a sovereign country (without U.N. approval)”
The United States does not need the approval of the UN to wage war.... So calling that some sort of impeachable offense is ludicrous.
I am not going to sit here and defend everything the Bush admin did, but waging a war without the UN signing on? What idiotic universe does this person live in that they believe a nation must ask approval from the UN to engage in military actions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.